Trump's LA National Guard orders draw comparisons to Jan. 6
WASHINGTON – One group was considered a rampaging mob whose members bear-sprayed and beat police officers while breaking into the seat of American democracy to stop the peaceful transfer of power.
The other was a more dispersed and uncoordinated group of violent agitators burning empty cars, looting and throwing rocks at police.
In the first incident, the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, then-President Donald Trump never called in the National Guard, despite pleas from local officials and some congressional lawmakers. They said troops were needed to prevent further violence from an angry mob that Trump himself had riled up to stay in power after losing the 2020 election.
In the second case, which is still ongoing, Trump not only deployed the California National Guard over the objections of Gov. Gavin Newsom, he also called in 700 active duty Marines to quell anti-ICE protests that erupted in Los Angeles over aggressive immigration raids.
The contrast between Trump's actions in 2021, when the U.S. Capitol was overrun by a violent mob, and this month in Los Angeles is proof, his critics say, the president is using the U.S. military for political purposes.
But some supporters of the president say the more appropriate comparison isn't with the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, but the riots and disturbances that rocked American cities in the summer of 2020 after the police killing of George Floyd.
The Floyd protests showed "you've got to put out small fires before they turn into forest fires,' Jay Town, who served as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama during Trump's first administration, told USA TODAY.
Trump said the troops were needed in Los Angeles to put down a 'form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States."
The protests in Los Angeles are seen as more tepid compared to the Jan. 6 riots in terms of constituting a rebellion or threat to the federal government, according to Newsom, Democratic lawmakers, and legal experts.
They accuse Trump − who was impeached and criminally indicted over Jan. 6, though the charges were dropped after his reelection − of deploying soldiers to serve his own political ends.
"There was not plausibly a rebellion in Los Angeles, under any reasonable interpretation of the term," said Chris Mirasola, a law professor at the University of Houston and a former Department of Defense legal advisor.
Critics saw a cracked mirror image of Jan. 6 in Trump's mobilization of the National Guard in Los Angeles.
'This is a reverse of Jan. 6, where Trump allowed his most violent supporters to attack the Capitol on his behalf," Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., told USA TODAY, "and here he is sending in federal troops to provoke his opponents to attack them.'
"In both instances, his aim is chaos,' Swalwell said.
Four people died during the Jan. 6 assault on Congress and five police officers died in its aftermath − one from a stroke the following day and four by suicide. About 140 other law enforcement officers were injured.
More than 1,575 people were charged in connection with Jan. 6, ranging from misdemeanors such as trespassing to felonies such as assaulting police officers and seditious conspiracy. At least 600 were charged with the felony of assaulting or impeding law enforcement, according to the Police Executive Research Forum.
Damages for Jan. 6 surpassed $2.7 billion, according to an investigation by Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
In the current case, at least nine LAPD officers and an unknown number of protesters have been hurt, with most sustaining minor injuries.
The Los Angeles Police Department has arrested more than 500 people in eight days of protests, the majority of them on minor charges such as failure to disperse or not obeying a nighttime curfew.
Two were charged with throwing firebombs, authorities said on June 11.
Though the extent of damage from the current LA protests are unknown, it is far less significant than on Jan. 6, Democratic lawmakers and city and state officials say.
Trump and other administration officials repeatedly have said there's no comparison between Jan. 6 and the Los Angeles violence, and that California and LA officials forced the President's hand by failing to quell the growing protests.
'Generations of Army heroes did not shed their blood on distant shores only to watch our country be destroyed by invasion,' Trump told Army soldiers in a June 10 speech at Fort Bragg, N.C. 'As commander in chief, I will not let that happen.'
Trump didn't make any such pronouncements four years ago as a stunned nation watched the Capitol attack unfold, with organized groups including the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers militia taking leading roles.
In 2021, Trump spent 187 minutes watching the Capitol assault on TV, while mobs ransacked Congressional offices and hunted for Democratic lawmakers and even his own vice president, Mike Pence, according to a House committee investigating the attack.
Hours later, only after the crowd began dispersing, Trump posted a video on social media at 4:17 p.m.: 'Go home. We love you, you're very special.'
It wasn't until 5:20 p.m. on Jan. 6 that the first National Guard troops arrived at the Capitol, while police secured the complex.
'In a bipartisan way, on Jan. 6 − with violence against the Constitution, against the Congress and against the United States Capitol − we begged the president of the United States to send in the National Guard,' former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., told reporters. 'He would not do it.'
'And yet, in a contra-constitutional way, he has sent the National Guard into California,' Pelosi said on June 10. 'Something is very wrong with this picture."
On June 13, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily halted a federal judge's order blocking Trump's Guard mobilization in Los Angeles.
Supporters of Trump's National Guard call-out in California point to a different set of disturbances to justify his actions.
Town, the Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama from 2017 to a 2020 and a former Marine, described a more complex set of circumstances than Pelosi.
He cited statements by Steven Sund, the U.S. Capitol Police chief at the time, that he begged for National Guard assistance on Jan. 6 but that it was congressional officials who reported to Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who delayed approval.
More: Amid LA deployment, Hegseth falsely attacks Tim Walz over 2020 George Floyd riots
Town said the appropriate comparison isn't with Jan. 6, but the National Guard deployments in 2020 during riots following the murder of George Floyd by a police officer in Minneapolis.
'What we learned in 2020, as a guy who was in office then, is that you've got to put out small fires before they turn into forest fires,' Town told USA TODAY. "President Trump is not going to let what happened under the failed local and state leadership in Minneapolis and Seattle and so many other places happen again.'
On June 17, as he returned to Washington from the Group of Seven summit in Canada, Trump wrote on Truth Social: "If I didn't put the National Guard into Los Angeles, the place would be burned down to the ground right now."
On his first day back in office in 2025, Trump pardoned all but 14 of the approximately 1,270 convicted Jan. 6 rioters.
He and Cabinet members including Attorney General Pam Bondi say they will prosecute anyone who even touches a law enforcement official in Los Angeles to the fullest extent of the law.
Asked if that was hypocritical in light of Trump's Jan. 6 pardons, Bondi said, "Well, this is very different."
"These are people out there hurting people in California right now,' Bondi said in an on-camera gaggle with reporters at the White House. 'This is ongoing."
Newsom, who is suing Trump over the Marines and Guardsmen in Los Angeles, disagreed.
"Trump, he's not opposed to lawlessness and violence, as long as it serves him,' Newsom said. 'What more evidence do we need than Jan. 6?"
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump's LA National Guard orders draw comparisons to Jan. 6
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Europe Frets About US Retreating From Region Ahead of NATO
(Bloomberg) -- NATO's European allies are focused on getting through this week's summit unscathed. But even if President Donald Trump is satisfied with fresh pledges to ramp up spending, anxiety is growing about the US military presence in the region. Bezos Wedding Draws Protests, Soul-Searching Over Tourism in Venice One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Only after the June 24-25 summit meeting in The Hague – where North Atlantic Treaty Organization members will pledge to spend 5% of GDP on defense – will the US present its military review, which will spell out the scope of what are likely significant reductions in Europe. With some 80,000 US troops in Europe, governments in the region have factored in at least a reversal of the military surge under former President Joe Biden of about 20,000 troops. The stakes got significantly higher overnight after US struck nuclear sites in Iran with the risk that Trump will get sucked into a spiraling conflict in the Middle East after being a vocal critic of US military involvement overseas. His foreign policy U-turn will be a topic that will be hard to avoid at the gathering, especially with NATO ally Turkey present and a key stakeholder in the region. Europeans have been kept in the dark on the Trump administration's plans. But officials in the region are bracing potentially for a far bigger withdrawal that could present a dangerous security risk, according to officials familiar with the discussions who declined to be identified as closed-door talks take place before the review. Up until early June, no official from the US had come to NATO to talk about the US force posture review, spurring concern among allies that this could be done at very short notice, according to a person familiar with the matter. It's unclear whether European nations have started planning to fill any potential gaps left by US forces. Withdrawing the aforementioned 20,000 troops could also have an even greater impact if other NATO allies follow the US lead and remove their troops from the east. The worry with even deeper cuts impacting US bases in Germany and Italy is they could encourage Russia to test NATO's Article 5 of collective defense with hybrid attacks across the alliance, the person familiar also said. Since returning to the White House, Trump and his allies have warned European capitals that – despite the mounting threat from Russia – they need to take charge of their security as the US turns its military and diplomatic focus to the Indo-Pacific region. Contacted by Bloomberg, NATO declined to respond to questions but referred to a statement by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in early June. When asked about a US drawdown from Europe, he said it was normal they would pivot to Asia. 'I'm not worried about that, but I'm absolutely convinced we will do that in a step-by-step approach,' Rutte said then. 'There will be no capability gaps in Europe because of this.' The White House referred questions to the Pentagon. 'The U.S. constantly evaluates force posture to ensure it aligns with America's strategic interests,' a defense official responded. The geopolitical shift is likely to have enormous consequences for the 32-member alliance, which is weathering its greatest challenge since it became the bulwark against Soviet power in the decades after World War II. European militaries long reliant on American hard power will have to fill the gap as Washington scales back. If a troop reduction focuses on efficiency, it would be far less problematic for Europeans than one that hits critical assets and personnel that Europe couldn't replace immediately, according to one European diplomat. The nature of a withdrawal would be more important than the troop numbers, the person said. A dramatic pullout announcement is likely to trigger an instant reaction from eastern member states, with those closer to Russia immediately requesting deployments from Western European allies. The holistic review of the US military, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says should focus on threats facing the US, is meant to reflect the tilt in the global power dynamic, bringing potentially large-scale redeployment of weapons and troops. But European diplomats have bristled at the timing of the review, taking place only after NATO signs off on its most ambitious new weapons targets since the Cold War — with member states agreeing to foot the bill. A withdrawal that is more dramatic than anticipated will mean that, after acceding to Trump's ramp-up in defense spending, they still may be left with a heavy burden to respond to a rapidly growing Russian military. 'We would be remiss in not reviewing force posture everywhere, but it would be the wrong planning assumption to say, 'America is abandoning'' or leaving Europe, Hegseth said in Stuttgart in February. 'No, America is smart to observe, plan, prioritize and project power to deter conflict.' After the Trump administration balked at providing a backstop to European security guarantees to Ukraine, a pullout of more US troops could embolden Russia's Vladimir Putin, according to people familiar with the matter. 'The question is when pressure is on for a greater focus on the Indo-Pacific, what capabilities do they need to think about moving,' said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at RUSI, a defense think tank. 'I don't get an impression that they have yet decided what that means for force levels in specific terms.' Germany, Europe's richest and most populous nation, is positioning itself to take on the largest share of the redistribution. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius is taking the lead in building out the military after the country scrapped constitutional debt restrictions when it comes to security. Berlin will do the 'heavy lifting,' he's said. Pistorius recently unveiled a new battle tank brigade in Lithuania and has said the country is committed to boosting its armed forces by as many as 60,000 soldiers. The military currently has about 182,000 active-duty troops. European governments are pushing Washington to communicate its plans clearly and space out any troop draw-downs to give them time to step up with their own forces. 'There are some capabilities, like deep precision strikes, where we Europeans need some time to catch up,' said Stefan Schulz, a senior official in the German Defense Ministry. He called for any US reduction to be done in an orderly fashion, 'so that this process of US reduction is matched with the uplift of European capabilities.' The ideal scenario would be an orderly shift within NATO toward a stronger Europe that would take about a decade, said Camille Grand, distinguished policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former NATO assistant secretary general. A more dire scenario would involve a US administration acting out of frustration with European progress and drastically reducing troop presence. Grand said a 'plausible' scenario would be a cut to about 65,000 US troops, matching a low-point figure before Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 — a level that NATO could manage. 'But if we go below that, we are entering uncharted waters, a different world,' Grand said. --With assistance from Courtney McBride and Milda Seputyte. (Adds a graph of context referencing developments in the Middle East in fourth paragraph.) Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error al recuperar los datos Inicia sesión para acceder a tu cartera de valores Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos
Washington Post
21 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Hundreds protest in The Hague against NATO, days before the Dutch city hosts alliance summit
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — Hundreds of people protested Sunday against NATO and military spending and against a possible conflict with Iran, two days before a summit of the alliance in The Hague that is seeking to increase allies' defense budgets. 'Let's invest in peace and sustainable energy,' Belgian politician Jos d'Haese told the crowd at a park not far from the summit venue. Although billed as a demonstration against NATO and the war in Gaza, protesters were joined by Iranians who held up banners saying 'No Iran War,' the day after the United States launched attacks against three of Iran's nuclear sites. 'We are opposed to war. People want to live a peaceful life,' said 74-year-old Hossein Hamadani, an Iranian who lives in the Netherlands. Look at the environment. 'Things are not good. So why do we spend money on war?' he added. The Netherlands is hosting the annual meeting of the 32-nation alliance starting Tuesday, with leaders scheduled to meet Wednesday. The heads of government want to hammer out an agreement on a hike in defense spending demanded by U.S. President Donald Trump. The deal appeared largely done last week, until Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez wrote to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that committing Madrid to spending 5% of its gross domestic product on defense 'would not only be unreasonable, but also counterproductive .' U.S. allies have ramped up defense spending since Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a full-scale invasion of Ukraine more than three years ago, but almost a third of them still don't meet NATO's current target of at least 2% of their gross domestic product. The summit is being protected by the biggest ever Dutch security operation, code named 'Orange Shield,' involving thousands of police and military personnel, drones, no-fly zones and cybersecurity experts. ___ Associated Press writer Molly Quell in The Hague contributed.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kidney doctor's shooting comes as questions emerge about dialysis centers
Dr. Andre Obua drove 18 hours from Miami to Terre Haute, Indiana. He pulled up to the home of a local kidney specialist and allegedly opened fire, striking the kidney doctor in the hand before being wrestled to the ground. The only thing more unexpected than the act of violence was the apparent motive. Accused in the shooting, which occurred one month after the brazen murder of the UnitedHealthcare CEO in New York City, was Obua, a highly educated medical resident with a promising career. But Obua had become fixated on one of the least-understood corners in the big business of medicine — kidney dialysis. In letters penned from prison, in phone interviews and on a website he created, Obua shared with CBS News his grievances, discussed the Luigi Mangione case in New York, and offered hints to the underpinnings of an alleged act that landed him in jail, where he is awaiting trial on attempted murder charges. He would not directly discuss the shooting and has pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors in Vigo County, Indiana, said they consider the crime abhorrent — and a source of continued pain for the physician who was shot. CBS News is not naming the victim at the request of prosecutors. Prosecutor Terry R. Modesitt said his office determined the victim "had never done anything to justify having violence brought against him." Modesitt voiced a broader concern about what he said he fears is a growing wave of disturbing vigilante violence that has no place in a civilized society. "These cases that we read about in the news or watch on TV about the news — there's no excuse for this," Modesitt said. "Go out and protest. Write your congressman… file a complaint with the attorney general's office in your state, things like that. But no, there's never any justification to go try to murder someone." Tom Mueller, the author of "How to Make a Killing: Blood, Death and Dollars in American Medicine," spent more than five years studying the dialysis industry. He says the incident conjures many of the same complex swirl of emotions that Americans expressed after the UnitedHealthcare shooting. There is a visceral disgust for violence used to make a statement, he said. And there is long-running dismay about the shortcomings of America's health care system, which may be costing lives. That includes, he said, a rise of for-profit dialysis clinics and their impact on quality of care for those confronting end-stage kidney disease. "Unless we can talk about systemic harm done by the medical profession, the insurance profession, against patients … we're not gonna get anywhere," Mueller said. Mueller may be uniquely positioned to weigh in on both the crime and the issue that may have been underlying it. For months before the shooting, he told CBS News that he and Obua had been corresponding by email about his book. In those emails, which he described to CBS News, he says Obua never gave any indication he was spiraling towards violence. Mueller only learned of the shooting later, during an interview with CBS News. "I nearly fell off my chair when I heard," Mueller said. "My sense is that [his] level of desperation just must have found an outlet in a violent act." Dialysis under scrutiny LaQuayia "LQ" Goldring, 28, has been a dialysis patient for the past ten years. Goldring lives near Louisville, Kentucky, where she spends up to four and a half hours a day hooked up to a home dialysis machine. It acts as her kidneys, taking the blood from her body, removing the waste, then cycling it back in. "Every day I wake up, I'm thanking God that my feet even hit the ground and that my eyes open and I can still breathe on my own," she said. Goldring is one of roughly 500,000 Americans dependent on dialysis to stay alive as they wait and hope for a kidney transplant, the only available remedy for those suffering from end-stage kidney disease. She receives the treatment at home, and says dialysis clinics left her with no control over her care, treating her like a "check." She, like Mueller, believes the industry has become too focused on profits. "This is emergency room care done in the mall," Mueller said. "People are not given the tailored treatment that they need." A review of federal data by CBS News found one-third of dialysis clinics failed to meet federal standards this year — nearly 2,500 of the roughly 7,600 clinics nationwide. The average score was 60 out of 100 possible points. Criticism of the industry has been disputed by the two largest for-profit companies in the dialysis industry, Fresenius and DaVita. Fresenius told CBS News in a statement that the company maintains an "unwavering focus on improving quality of life, strengthening clinical outcomes, and extending the lifespan of those we have the privilege to serve." DaVita said in a statement that its "dedicated clinicians consistently deliver high-quality, individualized care in a complex clinical and regulatory environment." A health care "duopoly" The two companies dominate the national landscape of clinics where kidney patients come to receive regular dialysis treatments — crucial to keeping them alive. Roughly 90% of patients get their treatment in the outpatient clinics. And together, the two for-profit companies own nearly 75% of all U.S. clinics — nearly 5,600 in total. The companies have become what Mueller calls "a duopoly" as the industry has consolidated over the past three decades. The share of independently owned dialysis facilities fell from 86% to 21% during that period. In over 2,500 cities around the U.S., a single company owns every clinic. That industry dominance has a cost, according to Ryan McDevitt, a Duke University economist who co-authored a study released this month looking at the toll of the scarce competition. "This is the most concentrated health care sector across the entire U.S.," McDevitt said. McDevitt argues that Medicare's limits on how much it reimburses clinics per patient have incentivized DaVita and Fresenius to focus on filling chairs to increase their profit margins. Both companies reject that characterization. Last year alone, DaVita delivered more than 29 million dialysis treatments, earning $391 in revenue per session. That includes providing home dialysis treatments, like Goldring receives through Fresenius. Together, Davita and Fresenius reported a total of $33.7 billion in revenue from all of their businesses. McDevitt said his research found that when independent clinics are acquired by DaVita or Fresenius, their transplant referrals drop by about 10%, their patient survival rates fall by 2%, hospitalizations increase by 5%, and infection rates go up by about 12%. While kidney specialists typically dictate the type of care they want for their patients, some doctors told CBS News they felt pressure from the companies running the dialysis clinics to move patients through faster. Dr. Leonard Stern, a nephrologist now at Columbia University, said even if he believed a patient needed five hours of dialysis treatment, there were times that DaVita would refuse. "We have a corporate model that provides the least amount of care for the most amount of profit for shareholders," Stern said. Stern served as medical director of an independent for-profit dialysis center until 2005, when it was sold to DaVita. After the acquisition, he said there were times the company instructed him to make more room for new patients. He said that sometimes meant more billing for DaVita, even if it resulted in unnecessary complications and return visits for his patients. Stern left the clinic in 2013. Dr. Jeffrey Gold, a kidney specialist in Royal Oak, Michigan, said the doctors feel pressure to "get the next patient in — and make sure everybody has a spot to dialyze." McDevitt described the one-size-fits-all approach as inconsistent with patient needs. "They call it bazooka dialysis, where they pump you through the station as quickly as possible," McDevitt said, comparing the turnover model to any other volume business. "They need to turn over stations multiple times a day to hit those profit numbers, to keep shareholders happy." Reports of deficiencies Most dialysis patients rely on the federal government to pay for the treatment. The costs add up to about $40 billion a year, according to the American Association of Kidney Patients. "It's actually one percent of the entire federal budget, which is a staggering statistic," McDevitt said. Despite the expenditures — about $100,000 per patient, according to McDevitt — the U.S. has among the highest death rates for patients on dialysis among developed nations. For years, health surveyors from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have conducted routine monitoring of dialysis clinics to assess their performance. Since 2013, those officials have cited U.S. dialysis centers for more than 115,000 deficiencies, including poor hand hygiene, unsanitary conditions while handling IV medications, and inadequate training. CMS assigns every facility a "Total Performance Score," evaluating them annually on measures like patient safety, infection control and hospitalization rates. If the score is below CMS standards, the clinic is hit with a financial penalty. A CBS News review of federal data found more than 40% of the clinics run by the nation's two largest dialysis providers — DaVita and Fresenius — failed to meet those same standards this year. That's nearly 1,600 clinics. In separate statements to CBS News, both companies highlighted their performance, saying the data reflects a track record of "exemplary care." Fresenius noted that more than 65% of its dialysis centers received three stars or higher on Medicare's five-star scale — a rate the company said is higher than the national average of all U.S. dialysis providers. The company also said its employees "take immense pride in providing best-in-class, high-quality care to our patients." DaVita said in a statement to CBS News that problems in clinics were "rare and isolated" and represent "exceptions and do not reflect the exemplary care we consistently provide." "We take every concern seriously, and if we make an error, we work immediately to resolve it," DaVita said in its statement. "To mischaracterize such anomalies as systemic care failures is reckless, fear-mongering, and puts patient well-being at risk." Legal settlements top $1 billion The dialysis industry has faced legal scrutiny over the past decade from patients, their surviving relatives, and from state and federal agencies. One ongoing federal case against Fresenius accuses the firm of trying to fraudulently obtain hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funds by performing unnecessary procedures — an allegation the company denies. The two companies have settled at least 25 lawsuits. And CBS News has found that since 2015, Fresenius and DaVita paid out at least $1.13 billion in legal settlements. "I have not seen any improvement in care following these settlements," McDevitt said. A spiral towards violence Frustration over the lack of reform in the industry has been simmering for years, Mueller told CBS News. Which is why Mueller said he was not unnerved as he exchanged emails with a Miami-based medical resident who had taken an interest in dialysis — and specifically, the use of a specific medication he thought could be harming patients. "The kinds of emails he sent were totally rational, very thoughtful, extremely data-driven," Mueller said, calling Andre Obua "the last person in the world I would think to commit a violent act." Over dozens of pages, the letters Obua sent to CBS News from jail describe how he grew up in a low-income household in Ann Arbor, Michigan — a background that "shaped my world views and motivates me to advocate for the less fortunate," he wrote. He says he first heard during an internal medical rotation about the use of a medication being prescribed to kidney patients to speed up the dialysis process, which he speculated could be endangering their health. It appears from his writing that this concern went from being an interest to being an obsession. At one point, he described seeking out a lawyer to file a whistleblower lawsuit, but was ultimately persuaded he could not succeed in court. CBS News sought to verify his claims, but no kidney expert interviewed believed that the medication in question harmed patients. Nevertheless, Obua unspooled mountains of his research, theories and accusations on a public website. A source familiar with the case told CBS News Obua had drawn up a list of kidney doctors to target. Near the top was the victim of his attack in Indiana. In January, for reasons Obua would not directly address in his letters and conversations with CBS News, the 29-year-old said he loaded his car with firearms and a bag of Monopoly money — which he noted was similar to the one left behind by alleged UnitedHealthcare shooter Luigi Mangione — and headed north towards Indiana. Police reports say Obua fired at a Terre Haute kidney specialist without warning, striking the doctor in the hand. The two wrestled in the tranquil suburban driveway until police arrived and placed Obua under arrest. Mueller shakes his head when thinking about the bright future Obua seemingly abandoned that winter evening. "It says we're living in extreme times," he said. "And it's a tragic, tragic event." Modesitt, the prosecutor, said he has no sympathy for the young medical resident who's now facing attempted murder charges. "If you've got a problem in any way with the system or anything else, we have attorney generals, we have secretary of states, different entities that you can file a complaint with," Modesitt said. "But it's never justified to take the law in your own hands." Obua is scheduled to go on trial in August. Full statement of DaVita: Our dedicated clinicians consistently deliver high-quality, individualized care in a complex clinical and regulatory environment. We understand that in any healthcare setting, rare and isolated incidents may occur. However, these are diligently addressed as exceptions and do not reflect the exemplary care we consistently provide. We take every concern seriously, and if we make an error, we work immediately to resolve it. To mischaracterize such anomalies as systemic care failures is reckless, fear-mongering, and puts patient well-being at risk. Full statement of Fresenius Medical Care: Providing high-quality care is our standard, and nothing gets in the way of our patients being our North Star. By any objective measure, our ability to hire qualified staff, deliver outstanding – best-in-class – patient care, and innovate for the betterment of people living with kidney disease far outpaces the industry. This is evidenced by the fact that the most recently available CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) 5-Star quality data, which concluded that more than 65% of all Fresenius Kidney Care (FKC) dialysis centers received 3 stars or higher – higher than the combined national average of all U.S. dialysis providers. Our approximately 70,000 employees and care teams, working across more than 2,600 dialysis centers, and delivering over 31 million treatments annually in the U.S. take immense pride in providing best-in-class, high-quality care to our patients. And our ability to introduce revolutionary advancements and innovation in kidney care, including the upcoming introduction of the 5008X™ CAREsystem in the U.S. that will deliver high-volume hemodiafiltration starting later in 2025, demonstrates our unwavering focus on improving quality of life, strengthening clinical outcomes, and extending the lifespan of those we have the privilege to serve. Netanyahu reacts to U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites Some key Democratic congressional leaders left out of Trump's Iran attack plans Extended interview: LQ Goldring on her quest for a kidney donor
